Play Nice 2021 Crowds and Ratings Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

RussellEbertHandball

Flick pass expert
Nov 16, 2004
69,560
107,149
SE Oz
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
The Mighty Blacks

AFL Grand Final 7 day Cons ratings are in


Metro Linear TVRegional Linear TVNationalMetroRegional
RankProgramNetwork / AffiliateTotal TV AudienceLift on OvernightOvernight7 Day TV Time ShiftOvernight7 Day TV Time ShiftBVODBVODBVOD
1SEVEN'S AFL: GRAND FINAL: MELBOURNE V WESTERN BULLDOGSSEVEN4,156,0001%3,006,00036,000907,00010,00019700000
2SEVEN'S AFL: GRAND FINAL: PRESENTATIONSSEVEN3,509,0002%2,667,00044,000790,0008,000000
3SEVEN'S AFL: GRAND FINAL: ON THE GROUNDSEVEN2,997,0000%2,266,00012,000717,0002,000000
4SEVEN'S AFL: GRAND FINAL: PRE MATCH ENTERTAINMENTSEVEN2,004,0001%1,464,00011,000529,0000000
7SEVEN'S AFL: GRAND FINAL: POST MATCHSEVEN1,518,0001%1,186,00012,000315,0001,0004,0003,0001,000
What do you mean by Overnight? Normal viewer numbers on terrestrial TV?
 

Bjo187

Team Captain
Apr 30, 2020
333
430
AFL Club
Essendon
Any comparison between the afl grand final and nrl grand final ratings wookie? I think a pretty evenly matched contest in terms of both being night games and 2 teams from one state.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
34,686
32,500
Scamander
AFL Club
Carlton
Any comparison between the afl grand final and nrl grand final ratings wookie? I think a pretty evenly matched contest in terms of both being night games and 2 teams from one state.

Metro Linear TVRegional Linear TVNationalMetroRegional
RankProgramNetwork / AffiliateTotal TV AudienceLift on OvernightOvernight7 Day TV Time ShiftOvernight7 Day TV Time ShiftBVODBVODBVODFox O/NKayo/Go/NowTotal
1SEVEN'S AFL: GRAND FINAL: MELBOURNE V WESTERN BULLDOGSSEVEN4,156,0001%3,006,00036,000907,00010,000197000004,156,000
4SEVEN'S AFL: FRIDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL FINALSSEVEN1,321,0002%1,012,00017,000288,0004,000000428,000252,5202,001,520
2SEVEN'S AFL: SATURDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL FINALSSEVEN1,203,0001%931,0007,000262,0003,000000384,000226,5601,813,560
3Sevens AFL Saturday Night Football FinalsSeven1,117,000835,0005,000274,0003,000000425,000196,0001,738,000
5Sevens AFL Friday Night Football FinalsSeven942,000698,0002,000239,0003,000000324,000159,0001,425,000
4Sevens Saturday Afternoon Football FinalsSeven901,000693,0003,000202,0003,000000267,000168,0001,336,000
3Sevens Saturday Night Football FinallsSEVEN1,061,000822,0005,000231,0003,000000267,000200,0001,528,000
5Sevens Friday Night Football FinalsSeven1,058,000840,0007,000208,0003,000000263,000178,0001,499,000
5Sevens Sunday Afternoon Football FinalsSeven1,034,000789,0001,000241,0003,000000291,000189,0001,514,000
Total17,011,080
Metro Linear TVRegional Linear TVNationalMetroRegional
RankProgramNetwork / AffiliateTotal TV AudienceLift on OvernightOvernight7 Day TV Time ShiftOvernight7 Day TV Time ShiftBVODBVODBVODFox O/NKayo/Go/NowTotal
1Rugby League Finals Series GFNine2,202,0001,031,000363,000003,596,000
8RUGBY LEAGUE FINAL SERIES PF2NINE1,318,0008%812,0001,000408,0006,00091,00068,00023,0004620002725802,052,580
5RUGBY LEAGUE FINAL SERIES PF1NINE1,226,00010%729,0004,000390,0004,00099,00074,00025,0004290002531101,908,110
3RUGBY LEAGUE FINAL SERIES SF2NINE1,172,0009%688,0006,000390,0004,00084,00063,00021,0004420002607801,874,780
6RUGBY LEAGUE FINAL SERIES SF1NINE1,026,0008%617,0004,000334,0001,00070,00052,00018,0003580002112201,595,220
3RUGBY LEAGUE FINAL SERIES QF2NINE928,0008%537,0004,000319,0004,00064,00047,00017,0003820002253801,535,380
9RUGBY LEAGUE FINALS SERIES EF2NINE893,0006%523,0000322,0001,00047,00034,00013,0003300001947001,417,700
6RUGBY LEAGUE FINAL SERIES QF1NINE886,0008%525,0003,000292,0002,00064,00047,00017,0003360001982401,420,240
5RUGBY LEAGUE FINAL SERIES EF1NINE766,0006%462,0002,000258,0001,00043,00032,00011,0003440002029601,312,960
Total16,712,970
AFL Total17,011,080
AFL Lead298,110
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,320
5,208
AFL Club
Collingwood
The BVOD/VPM data actually demonstrates just how flawed it is to compare aggregated averages of sports that go for different lengths of time

Here are the results from the week that included the AFL prelims and the first week of the NRL finals

https://reports.oztam.com.au/#/rolling/7

These are based on the foxtel now / go ratings...

1633484148696.png


Essentially what it shows is, across those 5 games you had more people (300 on average) watching more minutes (7 minutes) of the AFL games and yet the headline result is 10,300 lower average.

This is the same across all FTA, foxtel, Kayo numbers. The averages are not comparable data points, the volume and reach are.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
34,686
32,500
Scamander
AFL Club
Carlton
The BVOD/VPM data actually demonstrates just how flawed it is to compare aggregated averages of sports that go for different lengths of time

Here are the results from the week that included the AFL prelims and the first week of the NRL finals

https://reports.oztam.com.au/#/rolling/7

These are based on the foxtel now / go ratings...

View attachment 1254028

Essentially what it shows is, across those 5 games you had more people (300 on average) watching more minutes (7 minutes) of the AFL games and yet the headline result is 10,300 lower average.

This is the same across all FTA, foxtel, Kayo numbers. The averages are not comparable data points, the volume and reach are.
FTA BVOD data is more accurate in my post above this. And doesnt include Fox Go/NOW who evidently arent being included in VOZ.

Now you just need to convince an entire industry of ratings experts and tv execs and advertisers that you are are right and they are wrong.
 

Gigantor

Brownlow Medallist
May 13, 2012
15,351
5,441
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
FTA BVOD data is more accurate in my post above this. And doesnt include Fox Go/NOW who evidently arent being included in VOZ.

Now you just need to convince an entire industry of ratings experts and tv execs and advertisers that you are are right and they are wrong.
It's not really a case of right or wrong.
It's a case of how the totality of the data is used; how the advertisers and sponsors respond with all of the data.
And we've known the result of that for nigh on 30 years now.
A bit of banter between fans of different football codes ain't ever going to change that.
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,320
5,208
AFL Club
Collingwood
FTA BVOD data is more accurate in my post above this. And doesnt include Fox Go/NOW who evidently arent being included in VOZ.
Don't know what VOZ is but the foxtel go / now data VPM data on the OZTAM cite is presumably a (minority) portion of the Kayo / Go / Now column in your table



Now you just need to convince an entire industry of ratings experts and tv execs and advertisers that you are are right and they are wrong.
Well, no, I really don't.

For a start, average ratings I am sure are the most useful and valid data for most purposes such ratings data is gathered for.

I am just posting here to say that aggregating average ratings for different length events and comparing them is fundamentally flawed. This isn't opinion, it is demonstrable fact (which I demonstrated through the example above)

And there isn't some whole industry doing this. If I google "AFL aggregate TV ratings" and the first two links that come up are "footy industry" and "TV blackbox"
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,320
5,208
AFL Club
Collingwood
It's not really a case of right or wrong.
It's a case of how the totality of the data is used; how the advertisers and sponsors respond with all of the data.
And we've known the result of that for nigh on 30 years now.

A bit of banter between fans of different football codes ain't ever going to change that.
Exactly right. The actual effect of the data being misrepresented in cumulative averages is Roy Masters and some other mungos getting their hopes up they are going to get more cash in the next TV rights deal....and getting disappointed every time
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,320
5,208
AFL Club
Collingwood
OK, so here is another example based on this (couldn't find this on Oz Tam's cite so just using this old Wookie post from this thread



View attachment 1149328\

In the above image you can see the ratings for Sevens AFL coverage in Melbourne for July 19th last year. The figures represent 15 minute segments. The average is derived from the average of these figures, which is then added to the average of the averages of each individual city and regional area, to obtain the national average.
This is obviously from 2020 with shorter matches....it was a blow out between Melbourne and Hawthorn which is also likely to supress the numbers at the end.

The average for the match works out to be 280K (actually recorded as 285K which presumably means the coding loses some of the drag of that first number). The average from 4 to 6 (eg when the NRL ratings would be captured) was 298K.

Again, over a normal three hour game the 3pm to 4pm component would drag down the average considerably further. In combination with the bump into the news, I suspect this is why the NRL looks more competitive on Sunday afternoons than on Friday nights.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
34,686
32,500
Scamander
AFL Club
Carlton
Don't know what VOZ is but the foxtel go / now data VPM data on the OZTAM cite is presumably a (minority) portion of the Kayo / Go / Now column in your table
VOZ is the new standard industry measuring system that includes consolidated 7 day ratings across metro, regional and BVOD.

Well, no, I really don't.

For a start, average ratings I am sure are the most useful and valid data for most purposes such ratings data is gathered for.

I am just posting here to say that aggregating average ratings for different length events and comparing them is fundamentally flawed. This isn't opinion, it is demonstrable fact (which I demonstrated through the example above)
fair enough. Its just that no one else does this in the industry across FTA, BVOD or PayTv.

And there isn't some whole industry doing this. If I google "AFL aggregate TV ratings" and the first two links that come up are "footy industry" and "TV blackbox"
Which are literally the same person - me. The AFL also report aggregated data in some annual reports - particularly weekly aggregates for all but 1 of the last 20 years, and the NRL has from time to time but not since 2016 i think. Roy Masters has as well - when he's not also citing me.
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,320
5,208
AFL Club
Collingwood
VOZ is the new standard industry measuring system that includes consolidated 7 day ratings across metro, regional and BVOD.



fair enough. Its just that no one else does this in the industry across FTA, BVOD or PayTv.



Which are literally the same person - me. The AFL also report aggregated data in some annual reports - particularly weekly aggregates for all but 1 of the last 20 years, and the NRL has from time to time but not since 2016 i think. Roy Masters has as well - when he's not also citing me.

That was my point. There is no whole industry aggregating AFL and NRL averages and comparing them. The "industry" is largely you.

The fact that the AFL has made the same mistake in its annual reports to its own detriment (though it is not presented as a comparison with the NRL presumably) doesn't make it right.

Just as an example, other sports use "cumulative reach" (or total reach) when aggregating multiple games

 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
34,686
32,500
Scamander
AFL Club
Carlton
That was my point. There is no whole industry aggregating AFL and NRL averages and comparing them. The "industry" is largely you.

The fact that the AFL has made the same mistake in its annual reports to its own detriment (though it is not presented as a comparison with the NRL presumably) doesn't make it right.
The Industry is not "largely me" just because its all thats convenient for you to find. the AFL has been doing it since at least 1994. Over the years, The NRL has done so, Netball has done so. Cricket has done so. And so has the assorted media that follows them. The comparisons were pretty much only being done by Masters before I started.

Reach is tyipically advertised by sports for major one off events

Just as an example, other sports use "cumulative reach" (or total reach) when aggregating multiple games

First article doesnt mention reach, but does note total cumulative audiences - which is almost always used to describe averages, not reach.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,320
5,208
AFL Club
Collingwood
The Industry is not "largely me" just because its all thats convenient for you to find. the AFL has been doing it since at least 1994. Over the years, The NRL has done so, Netball has done so. Cricket has done so. And so has the assorted media that follows them. The comparisons were pretty much only being done by Masters before I started.

Reach is tyipically advertised by sports for major one off events
To the extent those sports are aggregating averages, they are not making direct comparisons.

As an aside, I am keen to see how cricket does it for test matches. Does it use an average across the whole 5 days of the test or does it do it by day or by session?

I've genuinely had a decent look and so far found you, Old Roy and some dude called Shaun Carney making comparisons between aggregated AFL and NRL data. There is certainly nobody doing it consistently




First article doesnt mention reach, but does note total cumulative audiences - which is almost always used to describe averages, not reach.
Really?

This is clearly cumulative reach (or equivalent)

In the host nation of Japan, a total cumulative audience of 425 million watched some of the tournament, with Japan’s victory over Scotland attracting 54.8 million viewers.
Given the live audience for the whole tournament was given at 501 million earlier in the article and explicitly for the final "an average audience of 44.9 million fans watching live " it is not plausible that this could be anything but a cumulative reach figure.

In terms of your claim that "total cumulative audiences" are "almost always used to describe averages, not reach", what could you possibly be basing that on? I've just googled "total cumulative audiences" and "cumulative audiences" etc and, after sampling about 20, this is the only one that at least appears to be a cumulative of the average


Cumulative audience "cume" seems most often used to measure total unique viewers / listeners
 

Rob

Hall of Famer
Nov 8, 2000
30,443
17,873
South of the river
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Peel Thunder
FTA BVOD data is more accurate in my post above this. And doesnt include Fox Go/NOW who evidently arent being included in VOZ.

Now you just need to convince an entire industry of ratings experts and tv execs and advertisers that you are are right and they are wrong.
NoobPie is right though. In his example, more people watched the AFL on average for longer, yet going by average audience you'd think significantly more people watched the NRL.

It's not about right or wrong, it's simply the flawed use of average audience when judging what is most watched.
 

The_Wookie

Queenslander
Jul 2, 2010
34,686
32,500
Scamander
AFL Club
Carlton
To the extent those sports are aggregating averages, they are not making direct comparisons.
True. Thats been the media, and later myself, and later the media quoting myself.

As an aside, I am keen to see how cricket does it for test matches. Does it use an average across the whole 5 days of the test or does it do it by day or by session?
ratings averages are reported session by session.

I've genuinely had a decent look and so far found you, Old Roy and some dude called Shaun Carney making comparisons between aggregated AFL and NRL data. There is certainly nobody doing it consistently
Roy was doing it long before me, probably Hunter Fujak as well. Few others, some in media some in books.

Really?

This is clearly cumulative reach (or equivalent)
On further reflection, your most likely right.

In terms of your claim that "total cumulative audiences" are "almost always used to describe averages, not reach", what could you possibly be basing that on? I've just googled "total cumulative audiences" and "cumulative audiences" etc and, after sampling about 20, this is the only one that at least appears to be a cumulative of the average

Cumulative audience "cume" seems most often used to measure total unique viewers / listeners
Happy to concede I was wrong on this. Cume is more generally used to describe reach in any given period. Cumulative total audience is far more likely to be for a reach, unless it specifices cumulative average.

NoobPie is right though. In his example, more people watched the AFL on average for longer, yet going by average audience you'd think significantly more people watched the NRL.

It's not about right or wrong, it's simply the flawed use of average audience when judging what is most watched.
Its not that hes right or wrong, its industry standards I dont get to make up as there are many people outside this forum who also pay attention to this sort of thing. Its also not in VOZ, which the industry is moving to.

On simple averages, they did.

We get some Reach data from Seven, and used to from Nine, but the Nine data has dropped right off the planet.

I have included average minutes watched before across all mediums, and the end of year tables allow for that.
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,320
5,208
AFL Club
Collingwood
True. Thats been the media, and later myself, and later the media quoting myself.



ratings averages are reported session by session.



Roy was doing it long before me, probably Hunter Fujak as well. Few others, some in media some in books.



On further reflection, your most likely right.



Happy to concede I was wrong on this. Cume is more generally used to describe reach in any given period. Cumulative total audience is far more likely to be for a reach, unless it specifices cumulative average.



Its not that hes right or wrong, its industry standards I dont get to make up as there are many people outside this forum who also pay attention to this sort of thing. Its also not in VOZ, which the industry is moving to.

On simple averages, they did.

We get some Reach data from Seven, and used to from Nine, but the Nine data has dropped right off the planet.

I have included average minutes watched before across all mediums, and the end of year tables allow for that.

Appreciate the acknowledgements

I guess where we would ultimately continue to disagree on is the extent that there is something that you could call an "industry standard" in terms of comparing aggregated sports ratings......and obviously the usefulness of such comparisons based on averages where one of the sports goes for 50% longer.
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,320
5,208
AFL Club
Collingwood
Paper by Hunter Fujak from last decade worth the read to those interested (which is most who hang out on this sub forum), not just for my own point score. Oldish but still largely relevant to the broadcast strategies of the AFL and NRL



1633604486041.png


1633604314413.png
 
Last edited:

weewilly

Team Captain
Jul 18, 2003
366
167
Other Teams
Swans
Paper by Hunter Fujak from last decade worth the read to those interested (which is most who hang out on this sub forum), not just for my own point score. Oldish but still largely relevant to the broadcast strategies of the AFL and NRL



View attachment 1255407

View attachment 1255402
Wow the AFL was miles ahead in 2014 but I wonder if it is still the same now?
 

NoobPie

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 21, 2016
7,320
5,208
AFL Club
Collingwood
Wow the AFL was miles ahead in 2014 but I wonder if it is still the same now?
I suspect it would be similar now to then

The key with Hunter Fujak's table is he converted it in to time units so a fair comparison can be made. If you were aggregating average hours then the AFL would have marginally "lost" overall over the period (3.3%) and marginally "won" if you just considered premiership ratings themselves....

1633656437803.png
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad